Sanders: It's Hillary's fault that the Russians helped me

[Landslide Lyndon]

I wonder how Bernie is gonna win in 2020 when his base is little more than increasingly delusional, rude, combative morons like Gen Mondale and jfern?

He won't.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I wonder how Bernie is gonna win in 2020 when his base is little more than increasingly delusional, rude, combative morons like Gen Mondale and jfern?

He won't.

The candidate you HillBots supported lost to someone less popular than Barry Goldwater.

[publicunofficial]

>People demand Bernie make a statement for being helped by Russian interference (Clearly hoping for an admission of guilt that would disqualify him for 2020)
>Bernie defends himself
>WAAAAAH WE NEED TO STOP FIGHTING THE 2016 PRIMARY, MOVE ON BERNERS

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

>People demand Bernie make a statement for being helped by Russian interference (Clearly hoping for an admission of guilt that would disqualify him for 2020)
>Bernie defends himself
>WAAAAAH WE NEED TO STOP FIGHTING THE 2016 PRIMARY, MOVE ON BERNERS

[TheRocketRaccoon]

This thread sums up why Bernie shouldn't have said what he said. It's leading to a primary re-fighting.

That's actually an accurate summing up of how things run in the Democratic Party: Nobody say anything otherwise we'll lose. Unions should keep quiet, blacks should keep quiet, poor people should keep quiet, liberals should keep quiet , etc....

It's one thing to disagree on policy; it's another thing to fight over which side was more electable in an election that already happened just because one former 2016 candidate mentioned another 2016 candidate.

I don't care for fighting about the electability of the 2016 election....but that's all that the Clinton mafia bring up...that was their entire argument of 2016: Hillary was the only electable candidate and everyone else was a fringe lunatic who would lose (including Trump)

They couldn't beat Obama, they could barely beat Sanders and they couldn't beat dumbass Trump....yet they still won't STFU about how Hillary and Establishment trash like Biden is what's electable in 2020.

These clowns don't know anything about electability or winning elections.

In all ur posts here I have never seen u post anything worthwhile or relevant.

[publicunofficial]

This thread sums up why Bernie shouldn't have said what he said. It's leading to a primary re-fighting.

That's actually an accurate summing up of how things run in the Democratic Party: Nobody say anything otherwise we'll lose. Unions should keep quiet, blacks should keep quiet, poor people should keep quiet, liberals should keep quiet , etc....

It's one thing to disagree on policy; it's another thing to fight over which side was more electable in an election that already happened just because one former 2016 candidate mentioned another 2016 candidate.

I don't care for fighting about the electability of the 2016 election....but that's all that the Clinton mafia bring up...that was their entire argument of 2016: Hillary was the only electable candidate and everyone else was a fringe lunatic who would lose (including Trump)

They couldn't beat Obama, they could barely beat Sanders and they couldn't beat dumbass Trump....yet they still won't STFU about how Hillary and Establishment trash like Biden is what's electable in 2020.

These clowns don't know anything about electability or winning elections.

In all ur posts here I have never seen u post anything worthwhile or relevant.

You have like, 5 posts over 2 sentences in length.

[TheRocketRaccoon]

This thread sums up why Bernie shouldn't have said what he said. It's leading to a primary re-fighting.

That's actually an accurate summing up of how things run in the Democratic Party: Nobody say anything otherwise we'll lose. Unions should keep quiet, blacks should keep quiet, poor people should keep quiet, liberals should keep quiet , etc....

It's one thing to disagree on policy; it's another thing to fight over which side was more electable in an election that already happened just because one former 2016 candidate mentioned another 2016 candidate.

I don't care for fighting about the electability of the 2016 election....but that's all that the Clinton mafia bring up...that was their entire argument of 2016: Hillary was the only electable candidate and everyone else was a fringe lunatic who would lose (including Trump)

They couldn't beat Obama, they could barely beat Sanders and they couldn't beat dumbass Trump....yet they still won't STFU about how Hillary and Establishment trash like Biden is what's electable in 2020.

These clowns don't know anything about electability or winning elections.

In all ur posts here I have never seen u post anything worthwhile or relevant.

You have like, 5 posts over 2 sentences in length.

It's about the effort most posts deserve t b h

[Joey1996]

Landslide is by far this forum's worst poster

[Landslide Lyndon]

Landslide is by far this forum's worst poster

Thanks for your kind words.

[courts]

>People demand Bernie make a statement for being helped by Russian interference (Clearly hoping for an admission of guilt that would disqualify him for 2020)
>Bernie defends himself
>WAAAAAH WE NEED TO STOP FIGHTING THE 2016 PRIMARY, MOVE ON BERNERS

pretty much this. this incident made my opinion of him go up a little bit, if anything

[CookieDamage]

I wonder how Bernie is gonna win in 2020 when his base is little more than increasingly delusional, rude, combative morons like Gen Mondale and jfern?

He won't.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

>People demand Bernie make a statement for being helped by Russian interference (Clearly hoping for an admission of guilt that would disqualify him for 2020)
>Bernie defends himself
>WAAAAAH WE NEED TO STOP FIGHTING THE 2016 PRIMARY, MOVE ON BERNERS

pretty much this. this incident made my opinion of him go up a little bit, if anything

That says more about you then him

[James Monroe]

Once Tad Devine gets indicted his presidential hopes are over. Not that he ever was going to win the Democratic Party nomination.

[junior chįmp]

I wonder how Bernie is gonna win in 2020 when his base is little more than increasingly delusional, rude, combative morons like Gen Mondale and jfern?

You guys are hilarious lecturing the rest of us on what it takes to win. Let's look at the pathetic record of your wing of the party after the 2016 election:

The GOP has control of:

37 State Senates
31 State Houses
36 Governorships
Lost the House
Lost the Senate
Lost the SCOTUS
Lost the executive to the worst candidate in history Donald Trump

Now despite sucking so much ass with such a pathetic record...the Clinton wing of the party still keeps insisting that, in fact, they are the electable ones and they know what it takes to win elections.

You guys ought to thank Trump he won in 2016 because as bad as all those stats are that I posted above, if would actually BE WORSE HAD HILLARY WON. So before you laugh at Bernie backed candidates like Quist losing, just remember that Hillary lost to Donald J Trump. If any single loss in political history points more to the un-electability of a party and its predominant wing then its the ''inevitable''Hillary losing to retarded game show host Donald Trump.

[YE]

I wonder how Bernie is gonna win in 2020 when his base is little more than increasingly delusional, rude, combative morons like Gen Mondale and jfern?

Why do you think he's divisive when he's the most popular politician (Joe Biden doesn't count as politician if you ask me) in the country? I'm genuinely curious.

[junior chįmp]

I wonder how Bernie is gonna win in 2020 when his base is little more than increasingly delusional, rude, combative morons like Gen Mondale and jfern?

Why do you think he's divisive when he's the most popular politician (Joe Biden doesn't count as politician if you ask me) in the country? I'm genuinely curious.

For the Democratic Party, anyone who simply points out their sorry record is branded as divisive. A large part of that is because the Democratic Party is made up of elite stiffs who are more concerned with getting promoted within the party than legislating anything of substance. So when someone comes along and points out the Democratic party's sorry record, the people within the party hoping to get promoted, have to fight back and claim they are being divisive. For example:

In 2004, Democrats sued Ralph Nader to keep him off the ballot in several states because the pathetic centrist wing of the party was worried they might lose to Bush. They lost anyway despite Kerry leading up until the last 2-3 months.

In 2000, Democrats blamed SCOTUS and Ralph Nader for losing despite the fact that 12% of Florida Democrats (over 200,000 people) voted for Republican George Bush.

Democrats complain about the Iraq War but they voted for it. Democrats complain about the giant national debt but they voted for the Bush tax cuts. Democrats complain about the Conservative SCOTUS but they voted in Alito and Roberts. The Democrats just dont want to face the reality that as terrible as the Republican party has become, they themselves are so low energy that they lose to these people.

The Democratic party is always blaming others and they just cant face the music that the public doesn't want what they are selling. So instead the party wags their finger at the voting public and scolds their own base, but the proof is in the pudding: just look at the Democratic party's abysmal turnout numbers. Nobody bothers to turnout or vote or participate in anything. Things have gotten so bad that ordinary people have had to take it upon themselves and run for office because the Democratic Party sucks so much ass and has failed to recruit from within or properly train a new generation of leaders. Only Trump's victory did that.

[YE]

I wonder how Bernie is gonna win in 2020 when his base is little more than increasingly delusional, rude, combative morons like Gen Mondale and jfern?

Why do you think he's divisive when he's the most popular politician (Joe Biden doesn't count as politician if you ask me) in the country? I'm genuinely curious.

For the Democratic Party, anyone who simply points out their sorry record is branded as divisive. A large part of that is because the Democratic Party is made up of elite stiffs who are more concerned with getting promoted within the party than legislating anything of substance. So when someone comes along and points out the Democratic party's sorry record, the people within the party hoping to get promoted, have to fight back and claim they are being divisive. For example:

In 2004, Democrats sued Ralph Nader to keep him off the ballot in several states because the pathetic centrist wing of the party was worried they might lose to Bush. They lost anyway despite Kerry leading up until the last 2-3 months.

In 2000, Democrats blamed SCOTUS and Ralph Nader for losing despite the fact that 12% of Florida Democrats (over 200,000 people) voted for Republican George Bush.

Democrats complain about the Iraq War but they voted for it. Democrats complain about the giant national debt but they voted for the Bush tax cuts. Democrats complain about the Conservative SCOTUS but they voted in Alito and Roberts. The Democrats just dont want to face the reality that as terrible as the Republican party has become, they themselves are so low energy that they lose to these people.

The Democratic party is always blaming others and they just cant face the music that the public doesn't want what they are selling. So instead the party wags their finger at the voting public and scolds their own base, but the proof is in the pudding: just look at the Democratic party's abysmal turnout numbers. Nobody bothers to turnout or vote or participate in anything. Things have gotten so bad that ordinary people have had to take it upon themselves and run for office because the Democratic Party sucks so much ass and has failed to recruit from within or properly train a new generation of leaders. Only Trump's victory did that.

On substance, you're accurately describing a large chunk of the Democratic Party. The Democrats, with a few exceptions, are too scared to make strong arguments on the offensive, and just cave in when things get tough. But that wasn't why I asked the question.

I asked because of a previous post he made.

We should desire newer faces in the Dem primary, ala Harris, Kander (hopefully he can win one day), Duckworth, Cortez-Masto, Booker, etc. I wish the Dem party would go in a social democratic/laborist direction, but Bernie Sanders is a whiny, divisive, and self-centered politician who would do more harm than good.

Like I understand why one could think he's whiny and self-centered given what his campaign was like towards the end (although I'd argue he's been very cooperative in Congress), but not sure why he's divisive.

[junior chįmp]

We should desire newer faces in the Dem primary, ala Harris, Kander (hopefully he can win one day), Duckworth, Cortez-Masto, Booker, etc. I wish the Dem party would go in a social democratic/laborist direction, but Bernie Sanders is a whiny, divisive, and self-centered politician who would do more harm than good.

Like I understand why one could think he's whiny and self-centered given what his campaign was like towards the end (although I'd argue he's been very cooperative in Congress), but not sure who he's divisive.

Well it's really quite simple: There is a culture of avoiding responsibility within the Democratic Party on par with the Republicans. Because the fish rots from the head down, that seeps into their voting base who view voters as obstacles and not people with legitimate grievances.

The Sanders "movement" started from a disatisfaction within the political system. From a sorry opposition party known as the Democratic Party that only managed to muster up a 33% turnout rate in 2014 midterm. Just as the Civil Rights movement strung up from people disatisfied with the snail's pace of civil rights legislation in this country. Same with the labor unions movement, feminist movement, gay rights movement. All of these movements were viewed as divisive and selfish but they didn't come up for pointless reasons. Someone somewhere is tired of the status quo so they organize and disrupt things. Of course If your okay with the status quo then you view these people as troublemakers and menaces.

The Clinton gang act like we live in a fiefdom and the voters are lowly serfs who owe their votes to yass Queen. Whenever Democrats lose against people they view as hick's or simpletons, they immediately look for ways to avoid taking responsibility for their loss. They are so embarrassed that their genius Ivy league educated candidates lost to people they view as idiots. It just eats them up inside. It just can't be that maybe, just maybe, they suck ass. Nope! It's Ralph Nader, SCOTUS, Bush, the Tea Party, Bernie Sanders, Monica Lewinsky, the "vast right wing conspiracy," Fox News, Ralph Nader again, male news anchors, Trey Goudy, the Russians, Facebook, Social Media, her emails, rednecks, WWC voters, did I mention Ralph Nader?, Eastern Pennsylvania, Shelby vs Holder (even though it didn't apply to the Blue wall states),etc...

Hillary ought to thank Sanders supporters. They weren't anywhere near as ruthless as Hillary was with Obama in 2008 or with her husband's accusers for example. A higher percentage of Sanders supporters turned out for Hillary than Hillary supporters did for Obama in 2008. Sanders did rallies for her, cut campaign ads for her, told his voters to vote for her but as it always is with the mafioso Clinton cabal, its never enough. No amount of marketing, campaign rallies, consultants, or billions of "donations" from corporations could sell such a lousy candidate.

[YE]

We should desire newer faces in the Dem primary, ala Harris, Kander (hopefully he can win one day), Duckworth, Cortez-Masto, Booker, etc. I wish the Dem party would go in a social democratic/laborist direction, but Bernie Sanders is a whiny, divisive, and self-centered politician who would do more harm than good.

Like I understand why one could think he's whiny and self-centered given what his campaign was like towards the end (although I'd argue he's been very cooperative in Congress), but not sure who he's divisive.

Well it's really quite simple: There is a culture of avoiding responsibility within the Democratic Party on par with the Republicans. Because the fish rots from the head down, that seeps into their voting base who view voters as obstacles and not people with legitimate grievances.

The Sanders "movement" started from a disatisfaction within the political system. From a sorry opposition party known as the Democratic Party that only managed to muster up a 33% turnout rate in 2014 midterm. Just as the Civil Rights movement strung up from people disatisfied with the snail's pace of civil rights legislation in this country. Same with the labor unions movement, feminist movement, gay rights movement. All of these movements were viewed as divisive and selfish but they didn't come up for pointless reasons. Someone somewhere is tired of the status quo so they organize and disrupt things. Of course If your okay with the status quo then you view these people as troublemakers and menaces.

The Clinton gang act like we live in a fiefdom and the voters are lowly serfs who owe their votes to yass Queen. Whenever Democrats lose against people they view as hick's or simpletons, they immediately look for ways to avoid taking responsibility for their loss. They are so embarrassed that their genius Ivy league educated candidates lost to people they view as idiots. It just eats them up inside. It just can't be that maybe, just maybe, they suck ass. Nope! It's Ralph Nader, SCOTUS, Bush, the Tea Party, Bernie Sanders, Monica Lewinsky, the "vast right wing conspiracy," Fox News, Ralph Nader again, male news anchors, Trey Goudy, the Russians, Facebook, Social Media, her emails, rednecks, WWC voters, did I mention Ralph Nader?, Eastern Pennsylvania, Shelby vs Holder (even though it didn't apply to the Blue wall states),etc...

Hillary ought to thank Sanders supporters. They weren't anywhere near as ruthless as Hillary was with Obama in 2008 or with her husband's accusers for example. A higher percentage of Sanders supporters turned out for Hillary than Hillary supporters did for Obama in 2008. Sanders did rallies for her, cut campaign ads for her, told his voters to vote for her but as it always is with the mafioso Clinton cabal, its never enough. No amount of marketing, campaign rallies, consultants, or billions of "donations" from corporations could sell such a lousy candidate.

To a large extent I agree with you, but I think I mistyped my previous post, so you gave a reply I didn't intend to put you through the trouble of typing. Anyhow, on Atlas, there's a pretty vast chunk of posters that seem to be open to the idea that Democrats need to move in a more economically progressive direction but don't necessarily think Bernie Sanders is the perfect candidate to pull the realignment off, and while I think he's the best we have at this time, but am open to arguments otherwise, so given that he used a word I haven't really seen much aside from the Clinton direhards, I'm asking the specific poster directly.

[Lord Admirale]

What a ing baby.

[James Monroe]

What a ing baby.

[Rookie Yinzer]

Bernie Sanders is full of sh-t. Hope he knows he won't be treated with kid gloves in 2020. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Bernie Sanders is full of sh-t. Hope he knows he won't be treated with kid gloves in 2020. 

We're not voting for your establishment candidate after the primary is rigged for them.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Thread title taken out of context per usual. "I did not know Russian bots were promoting my campaign." "The real question to be asked is" why the Clinton campaign didn't do something. Seems pretty reasonable to me, he's responding to all the Corporate Democrats attacking him for being a Russian spy basically.

the broken clock is right.

Not only is the thread title unfair, the tweet from Vermont Public Radio is misleading in a clickbait kind of way (which is a really sad state of affairs).
The interview is here (about 11:30-18:00).   
Sanders says the Russians didn't help him, rather they were sowing division among his supporters post-primary as Sanders was helping campaign for Clinton. He wasn't blaming Clinton for not going public with the information they had about Russian bots. He was basically saying he didn't feel like going public with it was his role in the campaign.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Bernie made a gaffe. It happened. He isn't a god emperor. Please just shut up.